Reasons for signing
See why other supporters are signing, why this petition is important to them, and share your reason for signing (this will mean a lot to the starter of the petition).
Thanks for adding your voice.
The other thing is, the USA is the only industrialized nation without a national formulary for negotiating prescription drug prices. We are, however, the only nation with a law which prevents our government from negotiating prescription drug prices, Medicare Part D.
Public options do not address the bureaucratic bloat of our 900 health insurance companies, instead, it just adds one more unique billing system for all providers to buy new software for, adding additional admin costs to providers. Of course a public option cannot repeal Medicare Part D.
Only Medicare For All offers that paradigm change.
We know better durg prices are possible, because the VA pays 40% less than private sector, due to negotiating prices.
For a detailed yet engaging documentary on why the ACA costs so much and how single payer works efficiently, please check www.fixithealthcare.com
The next Hawaii M4A event: https://www.facebook.com/events/565434507461241?acontext=%7B%22source%22%3A5%2C%22action_history%22%3A[%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22main_list%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%5C%22%5C%22%22%7D]%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D
Thanks for adding your voice.
This won't change until we, the people, free ourselves from the power and control of what I call the US Health Care Industrial Oligopoly--by which I mean s handful of health insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, medical equipment corporations, for-profit hospitals, and even many private non-profit hospitals which have too much control over "our" so-called elected "representatives" wno allow the oligopoly to tell us how much we have to pay them, instead of the other way around.
And don't be fooled by those who say that is why we need more competition in health care because the health care "industry" is not the same as other industries which make and/or sell truly "discretionary" goods and services.
But there is a way we can still enjoy freedom of choice when it matters, such as our choice of doctors, but which is also less expensive than our current over-lapping, duplicative, and maze-like so-called "private" for-profit health care industry--
which simply will not voluntarily give up its oligopolistic power to make Americans pay far more than necessary for health care than any other developed nation on earth.
What is that more cost-effective solution? It' is called a "single payer" system, in which government has bargaining power equal with the health care industry that can be used to collectively bargain with private-sector health care providers to negotiate much lower costs for health care consumers. Imua! :)
Thanks for adding your voice.
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
“Do you have a vagina? And do you want to be in charge of it? If you said ‘yes’ to both, then congratulations – you’re a feminist!”
Caitlin Moran, writer
“I’ve never met a woman who is not strong, but sometimes they don’t let it out. Then there’s a tragedy, and then all of a sudden that strength comes. My message is let the strength come out before the tragedy.”
Diane von Furstenberg, fashion designer
Every man worldwide wants intercourse with a woman or a girl. But many women and girls have no chance to get contraception. Women and girls paid for it worldwide with their lifes and their health. The best contraception is always to have no intercourse with men and boys. But in a world of rape culture and sexual enslavement of female childs, girls and women is that not possible.
All men in all countries are the meaning they have a right of sex and the bodies of women and girls and they are not interested in the problems of unwanted pregnancies, childbirths and denied contraceptions. They only want great sex and fun, the pain of women and girls, caused by intercourse, are their own problem. Intercourse is made for men, with lust and orgasm, but many women and girls have no orgasm and lust during intercourse, because their genitals are not enough stimulated by intercourse. What kind of world ist that? A world of female sex slaves and male dictators?
The denial of access to contraceptives including emergency contraception:
Restrictions on access to contraceptives and abortion threaten women’s fundamental human rights to life, health and equality. Every woman has the right to decide when and if she wants to have a child. Denied access to contraception, emergency contraception and safe abortion services is a clear example of institutional violence.
When States’ legislation, regulation and practice restrict access to basic sexual and reproductive health services, such as access to contraceptives or emergency contraception, they are violating basic human rights and incurring in institutional violence. Such restrictions have immediate and harmful effects on women’s health. According to the UN Committee Against Torture, this is a violation of the right of women to live free from emotional, physical and psychological torture. Human rights bodies have made clear that States have an affirmative duty to “―[t]ake appropriate legislative and administrative and other appropriate measures to prevent violations of human rights.” Furthermore, it is the obligation of the state to make adequate and appropriate remedies when human rights are being violated.
In accordance with international human rights standards sexual and reproductive health services must be available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality. To this end, States have an affirmative duty to ensure access to lawful sexual and reproductive health services and to prevent legal, social and regulatory barriers from infringing on women’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health care. States must exercise due diligence to prevent harm by third parties or entities, including monitoring and regulating the provision of reproductive healthcare in both public and private facilities, and are responsible for human rights violations resulting from their failure to oversee the provision of healthcare. When governments fail to comply with these international human rights standards and push women towards violent, discriminatory and dangerous situations for their health, they are endorsing institutional violence.
Lack and/or restrictive access to sexual and reproductive health services lead to unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions. Clandestine abortion clinics and providers have no incentive care about women’s health and lives when providing their illegal services. Through restrictive laws, or discriminatory practices, judges, doctors and health workers deny access to contraceptives and prevent women from making independent reproductive decisions in violation of women’s internationally recognized human rights.
Young people are a particularly vulnerable group when it comes to the denial to access to contraception and emergency contraception. Despite the recognition in the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the ―evolving capacities of adolescents to make decisions in matters affecting their lives, many States require parental consent in order for adolescents to access reproductive health information and services. Such requirements can deter adolescents from seeking necessary care because they believe their parents could learn that they are—or are considering becoming—sexually active.
222 million women have an unmet need for contraception, 50 million of which are under the age of 25.
An estimated 7.4 million adolescent girls across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Central and Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean experience unwanted pregnancies per year, partly due to lack of access to contraceptives, where some of them see no other choice but to resort to unsafe abortions.
Each year 22 million unsafe abortions lead to the death of an estimated 47,000 women and around 5 million women are admitted to hospital as a result of unsafe abortion every year.
Every year 70 000 adolescent girls die from complications from pregnancy and childbirth.
Research conducted in Yemen, has found that few women are aware of their legal right to use contraception, and even fewer are in a position to make free and independent choices about their reproductive health. It is reported that in rural areas, provision of healthcare in general is very poor, including SRH healthcare, leading to very high rates of maternal mortality.In Yemen is child marriage connected with FGM very common. Many female childs are dying oft hat.
The Philippine Supreme Court approved a landmark Reproductive Health Law in 2012, clearing the way for the government to start giving thousands of families access to contraception. The law guarantees the country’s poorest women universal and free access to modern contraceptives at government health centers. It also requires public schools to provide reproductive health and sexuality education and affirms the obligation to provide humane and comprehensive post-abortion care.Rape culture is a great problem and because oft that rape culture many underaged girls are getting pregnant.
The country of extreme misogyny and femicide. In Honduras the Supreme Court has upheld the country’s absolute ban on emergency contraception, which would criminalize the sale, distribution, and use of the “morning-after pill” — imposing punishment for offenders equal to that of obtaining or performing an abortion, which in Honduras is completely restricted.
In this country sexual and domestic violence connected with martial rape is normal.
In Argentina, after decades of government opposition to the sale or use of contraceptives, including even condoms during the 1976-83 military dictatorship, the government in 2003 began to implement a national program to distribute certain contraceptives – like hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices (IUDs) – for free through the national health system. However, women continue to face multiple barriers in their access to family planning, including lack of accurate information, violence in the home, economic constraints and discriminatory laws.
Around the world:
While there have been significant anti-choice efforts to restrict access to emergency contraception worldwide and specifically in Central and Latin America — including in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru— The Honduras’ ban is the most extensive so far. The extreme bans on emergency contraception have been widely recognized by international and regional human rights bodies, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as violations of a woman’s ability to exercise her fundamental human rights.
Access to emergency contraception can be a critical tool in preventing unwanted pregnancies — especially in countries where regular birth control can be difficult to obtain. Up to half of the sexually active young women in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have experienced challenges obtaining modern contraceptives — a figure that is much higher for single women than married women and especially high among adolescent women The limited access to emergency contraception has resulted in high rates of clandestine abortions and increased incidence of teenage pregnancy, often the result of sexual violence and suicides among adolescent girls. The Inter American Commission on Human Rights emphasizes that States have the duty to eliminate all barriers of fact and law that impede women’s access to maternal health services they need, and keep in mind that restrictive laws tend to especially affect girls and women in poverty, low levels of education and living in rural areas
In absolute figures, more than 220 million women have unmet need for family planning. The women affected are unable to decide freely on whether to have children or not, the number and timing of child bearing and are more at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. Lack of access to family planning services also increases the rate of abortions, including unsafe abortions. Of the estimated 80 million unwanted or unintended pregnancies each year, an estimated 45 million are terminated. Of these 45 million abortions, 22 million are unsafe with 40 percent done on women below 25 years of age. About 47000 women die every year from complications of unsafe abortion. The full responsibility of these preventable deaths lies within the governments.
Marital and Intimate Partner Sexual Assault
Intimate partner sexual assault is an assault that is committed by a current or past spouse or boyfriend. Forced intercourse within a marriage is often called "marital rape." Like other forms of domestic violence, marital rape is about exerting power and control over one’s partner. Historically, marital or intimate partner rape was not considered a crime. In many countries, including the United States, rape was traditionally defined as forced sexual conduct with someone other than one's wife. As a matter of law, rape could not occur within a marital relationship; the consent of the wife to the sexual contact was presumed. In recent years, there has been marked progress in removing such marital exemptions from rape statutes.
As of 2011, at least 52 countries had explicitly made marital rape a criminal offense, and according to a 2006 report from the UN Secretary-General, at least 104 countries criminalize marital rape—if not under explicit marital rape statutes, then under general rape laws. Yet, despite the trend on the books, legal systems in many countries continue to reflect the belief that rape within a marriage is not rape. Regardless of the extent to which marital rape is defined or recognized by law, in practice, it is rarely reported, prosecuted, or punished. Many women throughout the world do not know that marital rape is illegal and even when it is known, cultural norms and social stigmas discourage reporting. Law enforcement and prosecutors are often unwilling to respond to complaints and when they do, the burden is placed on the victim to prove the act was illegal, which generally requires visible physical injuries to prove lack of consent or resistance. In addition, Dorothy Thomas and Robin Levi report that marital rape is prosecuted and punished less often and less severely than are other crimes, in large part because of assumptions that women are complicit in or in some way provoked the assault.
The laws of many countries, particularly in the Middle East, but also throughout the world, implicitly exclude marital rape from the definition of sexual assault by providing that the perpetrator may be exonerated if he later marries his victim. In 2010, Amnesty International condemned Denmark’s Penal Code for allowing for a reduced or remitted punishment for perpetrators who enter into or continue a marriage after rape. As of 2011, similar marriage-after-rape exceptions also remained in force in Venezuela and Bulgaria. Such laws illustrate clearly the principle that men are assumed to have unlimited sexual access to their wives, thus negating the existence of rape and sexual abuse within marriage. In a number of countries in CEE/FSU, even where the law does not officially allow a rapist to avoid prosecution if he marries his victim, in practice, the victim's family will often pressure her to marry the rapist and withdraw the charges of sexual assault. In Armenia, "[f]amilies and victims of rape usually try to force the perpetrator to marry the victim because rape victims will have less chance of marrying later." In Uzbekistan, while marriage of the victim and the perpetrator is not enough to discontinue the case, "[i]n practice though, offenders escape criminal prosecution when all sides collude to arrange the marriage of the perpetrator and victim."
Following this same vein, countries where forced and child marriage are prevalent also implicitly condone marital rape. While forced and child marriages, as well as early motherhood, are becoming increasingly less common among the wealthiest sectors of society in all regions of the world, they persist in Africa and South Asia, as well as certain areas of the Former Soviet Union. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that 142 million girls will be married over the next decade if current trends continue (equates to approximately 39,000 per day). Because young married girls have little or no power in relation to their husbands, they are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence.
Legal Limitations to Prosecuting Marital Rape
In addition to the evidentiary hurdles women face in proving marital rape, many countries continue to place additional legal limitations on women's protection from rape within marriage. For example, in some parts of the United States, married women have a shorter time period within which to bring charges against their husband for rape. As described in a paper by Kersti Yllo, the "restricted time frames for reporting marital rape rest on the premise that wives will fabricate rape charges in order to advantage themselves in divorce proceedings if not legally prevented from doing so."
In some countries in CEE/FSU, while marital rape is not excluded from the definition of sexual assault, prosecutions for marital rape can be commenced only on a complaint by or with the approval of the victim, even when such complaint or approval is not otherwise required. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) addresses this issue by including in article 55 that parties shall ensure that investigations into or prosecution of marital rape are “not wholly dependent upon a report or complaint filed by a victim.” (The Istanbul Convention was opened for signature in 2011, but had not yet entered into force as of August 2013).
Response by Law Enforcement
Research has indicated that the police response to marital rape is also inadequate. One study described by Raquel Bergen found that "when police officers learn that the assailant is the woman's husband, they may fail to respond to a call from a victim of marital rape, refuse to allow a woman to file a complaint, and/or refuse to accompany her to the hospital to collect medical evidence." In investigating sexual violence in Russia, Human Rights Watch similarly found that "[t]he police are particularly likely to reject complaints of sexual violence from married women and single women who have been sexually active. In order to discourage these women from seeking redress, the police often suggest that their complaints are frivolous or groundless."
In part, the lower penalties that apply to marital rape are founded on the myth that because the husband and wife already have an intimate relationship, the act of forced intercourse is less traumatic for the victim when it occurs within a relationship. As Yllo argues, however, "[t]he shock, terror, and betrayal of wife rape are often exacerbated rather than mitigated by the marital relationship." Bergen's research indicates that victims of marital rape appear to suffer particularly severe psychological consequences.
The myth that the absence of physical injuries or resistance on the part of the victim indicates consent is particularly damaging in the context of intimate partner assault. Often, the response to sexual violence by an intimate partner involves "appeasement" coping or survival strategies. These strategies—such as giving in or avoiding one threat by submitting to a less harmful one—are frequently used by the victims of intimate partner sexual violence, for a number of reasons:
Women found that trying to talk their husband out of it was ineffective and that running away and hiding brought about broken doors. Some did threaten to leave, some did leave temporarily, some did leave and divorce, and some did use violence. But, overall, the decisions to choose appeasement over outright resistance revolved on several perceptions: the perception of the husband's strength, the presumption that if the wife resisted she would be hurt even worse (especially if there was a history of battering), that resistance prolonged the assault, that appeasement protected the children, that unless she was ready to leave she would have to face the man again, that it was good to "keep the peace," and that she believed herself to be wrong, at fault.
Even as state governments take steps to recognize marital rape, victims’ fear of reprisal, shame, cultural acceptance, and lack of knowledge of the law continue to contribute to the low number of cases reported and prosecuted worldwide. NGOs in Bosnia and Herzegovina report that “a sense of shame among rape victims and the failure of police to treat spousal rape as a serious offense inhibited the effective enforcement of the law.” In Serbia, the Women against Violence Network report that women fear reprisals and that, on numerous occasions, women were killed after reporting offenses. In Turkey, NGOs report that societal acceptance of domestic violence contributes to underreporting. A 2005 World Health Organization study of ten countries found that between 10%–20% of women in the provincial sites of Bangladesh, Peru, and the United Republic of Tanzania, and in Ethiopia and Samoa felt they had no right, under any circumstance, including abuse, to refuse sex with their partner. Nearly half to more than half of the women surveyed in some of these same countries believed their husbands would be justified in beating them if they refused sex.
Harm to Victims
According to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN), marital rape may result in more damage than stranger rape because victims are pressured to stay with their abusive partner, victims may have difficulty identifying the act as a crime or their partner as a criminal, there are potential negative impacts on children living in the home, and there is a higher likelihood of repeat assault.
Often, though not always, sexual assault by intimate partners is accompanied by other forms of domestic violence. Sexual assault is one of the abusive behaviors used by a batterer to maintain establish and maintain power and control over his partner. "Women are often raped as a continuation of a beating, threatened with more violence if they fail to comply with their husband's sexual requests, or forced to have sex to oblige the abuser's need to 'make up' after a beating." Research indicates that men who both batter and rape are more likely to severely injure or kill their wives.
Although marital rape and domestic violence are often associated, researchers also emphasize the need to recognize the existence of marital rape in situations not involving other forms of domestic violence.In part, it is necessary to understand marital rape as a problem distinct from domestic abuse "because for many women who are battered and raped, the sexual violence is particularly devastating and that trauma must be addressed specifically by service providers." One study found that forty percent of the women questioned had experienced "force-only rape," in which their husbands used only the amount of force that was necessary to coerce sexual contact, but did not otherwise batter their wives.
For more information, see the recommendation on defining marital rape as sexual assault in the 2010 United Nations Handbook for Legislation on Violence Against Women.
Men worldwide have no problem to kill, murder, torture, mutilate women, girls, childs and babies by violence, rape and war, but they call women, girls and female childs criminals, if they lost their babies or have an abortion (because of dangers for their health or rape). We must end this kind of inhumanity!
We must stop these crimes against humanity and human rights forever. Women are no sex toys, sex slaves and child bearing machines. Women are humans. Human rights are women’s rights!